[On a Friday,
August 21, a group of 18 faculty spent the day in the Alumni House
attempting to understand a common academic assignment which asks
students to compose an “argumentative paper.” To assist in that
effort, I prepared a series of handouts with various descriptions
of argumentative writing from current composition textbooks that
focus on teaching argumentation. Many faculty felt the most useful
handout was an adaptation of The Aims of Argument, 2nd edition,
by Timothy W. Crusius & Carolyn E. Channell (Mayfield Publishing,
1998), the same handout which serves as the primary source
for this Information Sheet. Following the Crusius & Channell
material are excerpts from the participants’ responses to the
final question of the workshop: “What, if anything, did you
find useful in this workshop on assigning argumentative papers?”
--Bob Marrs]

Argument can be
defined as a process of making what we think clear to ourselves
and to others. The definition derives from the word’s Latin origin,
arguere, meaning “to make clear.” Engaging in argument
involves moving from a private, often vague viewpoint to a clearly
stated position that we can publicly defend in speech or writing.
To undertake this process means to pursue the truth with honesty
and openness.

Argument in this
sense of seeking clarity has a two-part form or structure:

(1)
The statement of an opinion;

(2)
The statement of one or more reasons for holding that opinion.

Argument is not
in itself an end or a purpose of communication. It is rather
a means of discourse, a way of developing what we have to say.
We can identify four primary aims or purposes that argument helps
us accomplish:

•
Inquiry

•
Conviction

•
Persuasion

•
Negotiation

Arguing to
Inquire: Forming our opinions or questioning those we already
have.

The
ancient Greeks used the word dialectic to identify an argument
as inquiry; a more common term might be dialogue or conversation.
Arguing to inquire helps us accomplish the following:

•
to form opinions

•
to question opinions

•
to reason our way through conflicts or contradictions

It requires an
attitude of patient questioning under non-threatening circumstances,
usually done alone or among trusted friends and associates. The
primary purpose is a search for the truth. The primary audience
is often the writer and fellow inquirers concerned with the same
issues.

While some inquiry
may be never ending, the goal of most inquiry is to reach a conclusion,
a conviction. We seek an “earned opinion,” achieved through careful
thought, research, and discussion. And then we usually want others
to share this conviction, to secure the assent of an audience
by means of reason rather than by force.

Arguing to inquire
centers on asking questions: we want to expose and examine what
we think. Arguing to convince requires us to make a case, to
get others to agree with what we think. While inquiry is a cooperative
use of argument, convincing is competitive. We put our case against
the case of others in an effort to win the assent of readers.

While arguing
to convince seeks to earn the assent of readers or listeners,
arguing to persuade attempts to influence their behavior, to move
them to act upon the conviction. Persuasion aims to close the
gap between assent and action. To convince focuses on the logic
of an argument; to persuade will often rely on the personal appeal
of the writer (what Aristotle called ethos) and involve
an appeal to an audience’s emotions (pathos). In addition
to these personal and emotional appeals, persuasion exploits the
resources of language more fully than convincing does.

In general, the
more academic the audience or the more purely intellectual the
issue, the more likely that the writing task involves an argument
to convince rather than to persuade. In most philosophy or science
assignments, for example, the writer would usually focus on conviction
rather than persuasion, confining the argument primarily to thesis,
reasons, and evidence. But when you are working with public issues,
with matters of policy or questions of right and wrong, persuasion’s
fuller range of appeal is usually appropriate.

Persuasion begins
with difference and, when it works, ends with identity. We expect
that before reading our argument, readers will differ from us
in beliefs, attitudes, and/or desires. A successful persuasive
argument brings readers and writer together, creating a sense
of connection between parties.

Examples: Political
speeches, sermons, advertising

Arguing to
Negotiate: Exploring differences of opinion in the hope of
reaching agreement and/or cooperation.

If efforts to
convince and/or persuade the audience have failed, the participants
must often turn to negotiation, resolving the conflict in order
to maintain a satisfactory working relationship. Each side must
listen closely to understand the other side’s case and the emotional
commitments and values that support that case. The aim of negotiation
is to build consensus, usually by making and asking for concessions.
Dialogue plays a key role, bringing us full circle back to argument
as inquiry. Negotiation often depends on collaborative problem-solving.

Examples: Diplomatic
negotiations, labor relations, documents in organizational decision-making;
essays seeking resolution of conflict between competing parties;
also frequent in private life when dealing with disagreements
among friends and family members.

• I appreciated
hearing about--esp. in my small group--the idea of analysis and
inquiry before the actual argumentative paper is written.
This could be done as a preliminary paper prior to the full-flight
argument. Also the idea of putting the “lit” review type information
prior to the statement of purpose.

• The need to
justify why a paper should be written (other than an assignment
for a grade).

• Have students
do a diary in which they reflect upon the research process and
short papers in which they reflect on peer evaluations.

• Changing seating
arrangement in the class [requesting students to sit in different
locations in each class period] to encourage student retention
[of information and ideas from that class].

• Giving students
a structure for argumentative papers is appealing & useful
but should be balanced with explanation.

• The emphasis
on making assignments meaningful to students is something
I need to think more about.

• Discovered there
are lots of forms of the “argumentative essay.”

• An argumentative
essay assignment is a several step process (inquire, convince,
persuade) via looking & reading other argumentative essays
first before asking students to write their own.

• Begin by having
students share summaries of articles and information about topic.

• Seeing my assignment
through others’ eyes.

• The widely diverse
manner in which one can approach an argumentative paper.

• There is a tension
between imposing structure on an essay and the chance that creativity
may be stifled.

• There is more
benefit in multiple assignments than in a single argumentative
assignment.

• Reason vs. evidence
in argumentative writing.

• Have students
work together on a literature search - split up the work.

• Reminder that
students should read examples of articles/papers that use the
style I’m assigning.

• Thinking of
the teaching of argument as an “iterative” process.

“Truth is not
simply ‘out there’ in some wordless place waiting to be discovered;
rather, our opinion is what we discover or uncover as we grapple
with a controversial issue and results largely from how we interpret
ourselves and our world. We agree. . . with Wayne Booth that
truth claims ought to be provisional and subject to revision,
held for good reasons until better ones change our minds. Moreover,
we agree with Plato that rhetoric divorced from inquiry is dangerous
and morally suspect. The truth . . . must count for more than
sheer technical skill in argumentation.” Crusius & Channell

This website created and maintained by
the Coe Writing Center. Copyright 2001.
Email Dr. Bob Marrs with any questions,
comments or suggestions.